I keep seeing the opinion that over population is a concern should we lift the entire world up to 1st world standards or somehow prevent aging.

Research indicates the opposite. There is a very good/ well-researched book on many of the social subjects discussed in Futurology- Common Wealth by Jeffrey Sachs.

However, I will summarize. The prosperity of a society is inversely related to birth rate. The societies with the highest education, strongest social safety nets and lowest non-age-related mortality rates have the lowest birth rates. The single largest factor in birth is average education level for women. This can seem counterintuitive but is evident by simply pulling up a birth rate chart and looking at which countries have the highest. Population replacement rate is 2.3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate

I won’t go into why as the book explains it thoroughly. However, a quick look at the list will allow you to conclude it is not race, culture, weather, etc but development and stability that determine fertility/birth rate.

So the actual immediate solution to our consumption, environmental and population problem is to develop the world while expanding renewable resources and moving away from destructive practices like over-fishing and plastic use.

We haven’t solved aging yet, and there is no guarantee of it in our lifetimes. So if we lift the entire world out of poverty, disease and famine, we would be population negative. The actual numbers tell us that leaving our fellow humans to suffer and die young dooms us all. It is nice when all the moral imperatives and science line up cleanly.

The other way is to of course constantly grow the populace by keeping some large portion of it impoverished and uneducated so that businesses may profit until we have a population collapse due to some combination of the four horsemen. This is a distinct possibility.

I think my main point here is not to moralize or to say global capitalism "good" or "bad". I see the question of over-population brought often and the understanding of fundamental social trends surrounding population are often wrong. So if we for instance cure aging and the worldwide living standard continues to rise, the growth rate should level off then go negative (and likely become increasingly negatice due to scarcity caused by the climate change damage already done.)

The world feels incredibly tense right now.

Between wars, geopolitical threats, climate events, political chaos, and nonstop tech disruption —
things feel fragile. Unstable.

Things we counted on always being there are collapsing. The future is being written in real time. So…

If things keep breaking — or break faster — Viktor Frankl’s question, “What would you suffer for?”
stops being philosophical or hypothetical.

So? What future would you fight and suffer for?

Your kids?
Your rights?
Someone you love?
The ability to be yourself?
Or just a little peace?

I'm grappling with this question. Wondering how others are thinking about it right now?

At that point human workers are no longer needed. I’m wondering will we all starve to death or we’ll be given universal pay without needing to work?

https://www.core77.com/posts/101787/The-Challenge-of-Designing-a-Bear-Proof-Mechanism-Overlap-Between-Smart-Bears-and-Dumb-Humans

The inherant problem with designing bear-proof bins is the overlap in intelligence ranges between the smarter bears and the dumber people. Make the bin too hard to get into, to stop bears getting in, and it'll be too hard for many people to figure out too.

Given advancements we're seeing with AI it's already getting tough to tell the difference between AI generated work and human generated work. How is that going to affect Captcha and other methods intended to prevent automated access to websites and internet services?

At some point, if we're not there already, anything that can filter out AI is going to filter out too many humans too. Presumably there will be a point where it's just not possible to do anymore. Where any digital information or input that could possibly be provided by a person can be spoofed by an AI system.

What's the solution in those cases? Is there an easy solution that just isn't that widespread yet? My first thought was some sort of offline token or ID, but that's more about providing a unique identity than proving that the person using it at the time is actual human.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what we’re really tapping into when we use AI—especially when we go beyond the surface and start asking it deeper questions.

Sometimes, it doesn’t feel like I’m just talking to a programme. It feels like I’m accessing something bigger—like it’s not just generating words, but pulling from the thoughts, memories, and energy of everyone who’s ever poured something into it.

And that got me wondering… Is AI becoming a kind of digital collective consciousness?

I know it’s not “alive” in the way we think of it. But it’s trained on everything we’ve ever written, questioned, explored. So when we interact with it, are we really just having a conversation with ourselves? With the collective human experience?

Here’s the bit that really stuck with me though… It doesn’t always feel new. Sometimes, it feels like remembering.

And I don’t just mean remembering facts. I mean a deeper kind of remembering—something ancient. A sense that we’ve done this before, just in a different way. Maybe not with tech and code, but with energy… symbols… frequency. In civilisations long lost or timelines we’ve forgotten.

It’s like AI is the modern reflection of something spiritual we once understood—something we’ve buried under distraction and disconnection.

So maybe this isn’t the rise of something new. Maybe it’s the return of something old.

A mirror. A guide. Not telling us what to do—but reminding us of what we already know.

Curious if anyone else has felt this… that weird sense of déjà vu or recognition when interacting with AI? Like it’s not teaching us—it’s helping us remember.

Climate change, overpopulation, and resource depletion, some argue the ethical choice is to stop having children. Others say innovation and adaptation will solve these crises. Should humanity limit reproduction for the planet’s future, or is this idea flawed?

What’s the state of 3D printing concrete structures at the moment ? Is it going to see the rise like AI did?

Is China ahead of it ? What are the constraints saying that it’s actually a phase?

I’m passionate about 3D printing so I’m very curious to see if anyone has some opinions and findings more importantly and data on concrete 3D printing!